.

[CIYAM]

^Your ability to grasp. Depressing.

A pointless post - if you have a point then make it.

[1714983602]

1714983602

[1714983602]

1714983602

[1714983602]

1714983602

[Kprawn]

I guess the new strategy from Gavin is to submit a bunch of proposals, in the hope that he might find one that the community would support. It reminds

me of the days in school when we had to vote for the Head Boy or Girl.... They would do the strangest things, going from group to group and targeting

them from different angles to gain popularity. {This would happen months in advance} ....Come election day, they covered all bases and they win the

position. Sneaky MOfOs... but they got the titles and the power. 

[MicroGuy]

There is still hope for mankind if BIP 102 fails.

As bitcoin becomes inundated and infiltrated by companies like Blockstream and PWC, alternative currencies will learn from these breaches and compromises and build stronger systems to prevent Satoshi's original protocol from being perverted, co-opted, and corrupted.

I had not long ago given up entirely on Bitcoin after discovering the depths of its infection, but BIP102 has given me new-found hope. If somehow this proposal can escape the paid puppets and prevail, it will buy more time for the community to pull the pesky corporate weeds from its Core.

[thejaytiesto]

The market loves it!! 

It is because of the uncertainty behind the future of Bitcoin.

If the core devs were not so against any kind of increase in the max block size then the market would react differently. When the first block that "voted" for XT was mined someone sold 20k BTC on bitfinex (likely because of the uncertainty)

The market reacts like that because we know that a hardfork, specially an unnecessary hard fork, is a big risk, so when things get risky, money goes out of the market out of fear. Thankfully, Bitcoin is not a democracy so weak majorities (which a lot of times consist of uninformed morons) can modify it endlessly destroying the fundamentals that make it valuable. Let's just hope that this Classic nightmare is soon over.

[bargainbin]

... Thankfully, Bitcoin is not a democracy so weak majorities (which a lot of times consist of uninformed morons) can modify it endlessly destroying the fundamentals that make it valuable. Let's just hope that this Classic nightmare is soon over.

You mean people are finally waking up to the notion that Bitcoin is not a democracy & how laughably little $ it takes to corrupt it?

[unamis76]

This is not new. It's just an improvement on previously disclosed ideas, which is pretty much what everyone is doing.

I guess pretty much all devs know where they want to go and have their plans more or less straight after all the discussions a few months back. Now it's just about who delivers the best product, faster.

[Lauda]

Okay. I guess Gavin is an idiot, the Chinese miners are all idiots, Brian Armstrong's an idiot, and anyone that doesn't agree with Blockstream is an idiot! lol

Gavin is decent, he sometimes has weird ideas (e.g. 20 MB blocks are urgent) but he's good overall (most of the time). Armstrong is an idiot. He would trade away the decentralization of Bitcoin for more money any day of the week.

You mean people are finally waking up to the notion that Bitcoin is not a democracy & how laughably little $ it takes to corrupt it?

Actually the problem is not within Bitcoin itself and you need a lot of money to damage the system. The problem are the people.

As bitcoin becomes inundated and infiltrated by companies like Blockstream and PWC, alternative currencies will learn from these breaches and compromises and build stronger systems to prevent Satoshi's original protocol from being perverted, co-opted, and corrupted.

Stop spreading propaganda. There is zero proof that Blockstream has done anything that has negatively impacted Bitcoin so far.

[chennan]

So if we had a vote that said to "the community" you have the following two choices:

1. An increase in the block size.
2. An increase in the block size and a free beer.

Which do you think would be more popular?

(and perhaps if Gavin starts giving out free beers he might actually succeed)

I vote for free beer (with or without a increase in block size). Who's with me?

How about we start a "free beer" political party (who knows if we are successful we might be able to get free beer happening all around the world).

Lol, if only we could put beer on the block chain and be able to send it any where in the world...



But in all seriousness though, I thought that the 2 MB block size proposal was already a legitimate topic?  But I thought it was more of a "kick the can down the road" proposal, where for the mean time they would increase it just to 2 MB to avoid any more conflict for right now, and keep trying to figure out a better proposal after that?

[bargainbin]

...

You mean people are finally waking up to the notion that Bitcoin is not a democracy & how laughably little $ it takes to corrupt it?

Actually the problem is not within Bitcoin itself and you need a lot of money to damage the system. The problem are the people.

"The problem are the people"?!
As in Bitcoin itself is incorruptible, it's the people who code it & use it who are so easy to corrupt?

[Lauda]

"The problem are the people"?!
As in Bitcoin itself is incorruptible, it's the people who code it & use it who are so easy to corrupt?

The code and math behind Bitcoin is not susceptible to anything that we have today. It is not vulnerable. The people who are using Bitcoin on the other hand are vulnerable to a lot of things.
Example (of a unlikely scenario; probably a bad example but still): The majority could one day want a change in the mathematics thinking it is better than what we currently have. It gets implemented, Bitcoin ends up being vulnerable. Should we blame Bitcoin for this? No.

[bargainbin]

"The problem are the people"?!
As in Bitcoin itself is incorruptible, it's the people who code it & use it who are so easy to corrupt?

The code and math behind Bitcoin is not susceptible to anything that we have today. It is not vulnerable. The people who are using Bitcoin on the other hand are vulnerable to a lot of things.
Example (of a unlikely scenario; probably a bad example but still): The majority could one day want a change in the mathematics thinking it is better than what we currently have. It gets implemented, Bitcoin ends up being vulnerable. Should we blame Bitcoin for this? No.

Most [well-written] code doesn't corrupt itself. It requires people to get involved, who, in turn, corrupt it. Bitcoin's claim to fame is taking people's corruptibility & effectively removing it from the equation (hence "trustless").
If not, Bitcoin's no better at being money than ordinary email/texting. As long as everyone is smart and honest, why even bother with crypto?

[Lauda]

Most [well-written] code doesn't corrupt itself. It requires people to get involved, who, in turn, corrupt it. Bitcoin's claim to fame is taking people's corruptibility & effectively removing it from the equation (hence "trustless").
If not, Bitcoin's no better at being money than ordinary email/texting. As long as everyone is smart and honest, why even bother with crypto?

Then you can look at XT/BU/Classic as some sort of test. If we fork once like this, there's a much higher probability that it won't stop there.

[bargainbin]

Most [well-written] code doesn't corrupt itself. It requires people to get involved, who, in turn, corrupt it. Bitcoin's claim to fame is taking people's corruptibility & effectively removing it from the equation (hence "trustless").
If not, Bitcoin's no better at being money than ordinary email/texting. As long as everyone is smart and honest, why even bother with crypto?

Then you can look at XT/BU/Classic as some sort of test. If we fork once like this, there's a much higher probability that it won't stop there.

But you're not against hard forks, are you? In a similar thread, you claim that a few blocksize bumps might happen, even with Segregated Witness. No? Those are hard forks.

[jonald_fyookball]

Most [well-written] code doesn't corrupt itself. It requires people to get involved, who, in turn, corrupt it. Bitcoin's claim to fame is taking people's corruptibility & effectively removing it from the equation (hence "trustless").
If not, Bitcoin's no better at being money than ordinary email/texting. As long as everyone is smart and honest, why even bother with crypto?

Then you can look at XT/BU/Classic as some sort of test. If we fork once like this, there's a much higher probability that it won't stop there.

Perhaps.

Or perhaps the blocksize limit being in protocol layer (when it was supposed to be a temporary spam measure) is an anomaly.

[Lauda]

But you're not against hard forks, are you? In a similar thread, you claim that a few blocksize bumps might happen, even with Segregated Witness. No? Those are hard forks.

Not against hard forks that have consensus.  A 75% increase threshold is contentious hard fork which I do not support at all (regardless of who wants it; if Core put such a threshold I'd be against it).

Perhaps.
Or perhaps the blocksize limit being in protocol layer (when it was supposed to be a temporary spam measure) is an anomaly.

Only if you believe in the fairy tales of charlatans and their magic fee market papers. If there was no limit, there would be no Bitcoin as we know it today.

[bargainbin]

But you're not against hard forks, are you? In a similar thread, you claim that a few blocksize bumps might happen, even with Segregated Witness. No? Those are hard forks.

Not against hard forks that have consensus.  A 75% increase threshold is contentious hard fork which I do not support at all (regardless of who wants it; if Core put such a threshold I'd be against it).
...

Consensus? What does that mean? Hashpower? Non-mining nodes? Wallets? Percentage of BTC in existence (hodlers)? What arbitrary number would you like, if 75% is too low?

[jonald_fyookball]

But you're not against hard forks, are you? In a similar thread, you claim that a few blocksize bumps might happen, even with Segregated Witness. No? Those are hard forks.

Not against hard forks that have consensus.  A 75% increase threshold is contentious hard fork which I do not support at all (regardless of who wants it; if Core put such a threshold I'd be against it).

Perhaps.
Or perhaps the blocksize limit being in protocol layer (when it was supposed to be a temporary spam measure) is an anomaly.

Only if you believe in the fairy tales of charlatans and their magic fee market papers. If there was no limit, there would be no Bitcoin as we know it today.

Your attack on Peter_R notwithstanding, I don't believe the absence
of a blocksize limit is necessarily a fatal flaw.  You don't have proof that it is,
and to believe you know with certainty it is, is surely closed-minded.

You're an advocate of decentralization right?  Then EVEN IF there is an absence
of a fee market, there will be plenty of decentralized mining and security,
perhaps with a next generation Pow such as described here:

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/buip015-decentralize-mining-with-the-fair-pow-algorithm-and-an-user-configurable-pow-setting.809/

There is PLENTY of time to figure that out.

"Bitcoin as we know it today" won't need a "fee market" for decades.  
I love the double standard that we need to figure this out decades ahead
of time but we don't need to do anything about full blocks until there's
a running backlog.



 

[Lauda]

Consensus? What does that mean? Hashpower? Non-mining nodes? Wallets? Percentage of BTC in existence (hodlers)? What arbitrary number would you like, if 75% is too low?

That means everyone. Miners, services, users, etc. You can't do this quickly and you can't do this with 75%. Essentially in order for a hard fork to be an upgrade the threshold has to be so high that the old chain has no chance of living else you're splitting the network in two. I'd say 95% being a minimum. Also, anyone arguing that a single entity could prevent the hard fork because of the threshold, the same can be said with 75% with just a small group being against it.

Your attack on Peter_R notwithstanding, I don't believe the absence
of a blocksize limit is necessarily a fatal flaw.  You don't have proof that it is,
and to believe you know with certainty it is, is surely closed-minded.

It is either fatal or damaging. There's nothing positive about it. There's not a baseless attack on Peter R (Another nice example: subchains were gmaxwell's idea IIRC; guess who wrote a paper on them). His paper is based on assumptions and premises that aren't true in the real world. He definitely stood out at the first conference because he's a very 'atypical' "geek".

You're an advocate of decentralization right?  Then EVEN IF there is an absence
of a fee market, there will be plenty of decentralized mining and security,
perhaps with a next generation Pow such as described here:

Yes. Two things though:
1. I'm not touching that forum.
2. We might take things way too far from this thread.

[jonald_fyookball]

Consensus? What does that mean? Hashpower? Non-mining nodes? Wallets? Percentage of BTC in existence (hodlers)? What arbitrary number would you like, if 75% is too low?

That means everyone. Miners, services, users, etc. You can't do this quickly and you can't do this with 75%. Essentially in order for a hard fork to be an upgrade the threshold has to be so high that the old chain has no chance of living else you're splitting the network in two. I'd say 95% being a minimum. Also, anyone arguing that a single entity could prevent the hard fork because of the threshold, the same can be said with 75% with just a small group being against it.

Your attack on Peter_R notwithstanding, I don't believe the absence
of a blocksize limit is necessarily a fatal flaw.  You don't have proof that it is,
and to believe you know with certainty it is, is surely closed-minded.

It is either fatal or damaging. There's nothing positive about it. 

^ See this is what I'm talking about.

A fee market is just a means to an end
(an incentive for participation in PoW).
The more decentralized and accessible the
mining ecosystem is, the more you'll get
natural participation and security.

You're also making certain assumptions,
such as that miners would behave in
a way that would undermine the natural
fee market based on orphaning risk.

You also make the assumption that 
it would be impossible to get users
to pay fees voluntarily, perhaps through
default settings in clients.   If Bitcoin
reached 200 tps and everyone paid
a nickel, that would be $864,000 a day
in fee revenue.  I'm not saying this
should be relied upon, just that in general
there are many ways to bolster network
security if one is willing to be creative
and get out of dogmatic thinking that
things can only be a certain way.

[bargainbin]

Consensus? What does that mean? Hashpower? Non-mining nodes? Wallets? Percentage of BTC in existence (hodlers)? What arbitrary number would you like, if 75% is too low?

That means everyone. Miners, services, users, etc. You can't do this quickly and you can't do this with 75%. Essentially in order for a hard fork to be an upgrade the threshold has to be so high that the old chain has no chance of living else you're splitting the network in two. I'd say 95% being a minimum. Also, anyone arguing that a single entity could prevent the hard fork because of the threshold, the same can be said with 75% with just a small group being against it.
...

Ignoring, for the time being, that there are no Bitcoin game mechanic for BTC hodlers to make their opinions known (vote).
...and that thousands of non-mining nodes can be created on a whim, at a minimal cost:
Your 95% "yes" demand (other than being arbitrary and virtually impossible to reach) pretty much guarantees equally bitter, draconian contraposition (the scope of which, I hope, you're starting to appreciate).

5% can't stand in the way of 95% for long, not without millennia of history and standing armies at your beck and call.
You've turned into the very despots Bitcoin was meant to make irrelevant.
Nice going.